The
defendant, Christian Rosado, appeals from a judgment of
conviction on two separate counts of assault with a dangerous
weapon, to wit, a firearm. The defendant maintains that the
hearing justice erred in denying his motion for a mistrial
based on what he perceived to have been the state's
discovery violation. This case came before the Supreme Court
pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show
cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be
summarily decided. After considering the parties' written
and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude
that cause has not been shown and that this case may be
decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons
set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the
Superior Court.

I

Facts
and Procedural History

This
case involves a shooting that occurred in the City of
Woonsocket, which left Ikey Wilson with severe injury to his
stomach and required the amputation of his right leg. Three
witnesses-Wilson, Jalisa Collins, and Travis
Reeves-identified defendant as one of the three perpetrators
of the March 30, 2013, shooting. On December 11, 2013, a
criminal information was filed, charging defendant with
assaulting Wilson with a dangerous weapon, to wit, a firearm,
in violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-5-2[1] (count 1), assaulting Collins with a
dangerous weapon, to wit, a firearm, in violation of §
11-5-2 (count 2), and using a firearm while in the commission
of a crime of violence, resulting in injury to Wilson, in
violation of G.L. 1956 § 11-47-3.2(a) (count
3).[2]

On
September 15, 2014, the case proceeded to trial. At trial,
Wilson was the first witness to testify for the state. He
testified that, on the evening of March 30, 2013, Reeves,
whom he considered a friend, entered Wilson's residence
wanting Wilson "to go to the liquor store[] because
[Reeves] didn't have [an] ID." Wilson testified that
at that time he resided on Arnold Street in Woonsocket with
his fiancée, Collins, and two of his children. Wilson
testified that although Collins "was actually going to
go to the liquor store, " he decided that he did not
want her "going out at that time of night by herself,
" because he "[had] got[ten] into a couple of
incidents with [defendant]." He testified that he had
known defendant for "probably a little longer" than
six to seven months at that time. Wilson further testified
that they had had a friendly relationship, but that he had a
falling out with defendant about "a month or two"
prior to March 30, 2013, when defendant, along with about
five other individuals, approached Wilson as he was walking
his son to school. Wilson confirmed that he had also had
other confrontations with defendant prior to that day.

Returning
to the events of March 30, Wilson testified that he walked to
the liquor store with Collins and Reeves and that Collins
entered the store to purchase alcohol while he and Reeves
waited outside. Wilson said that, on their walk back to his
apartment, he saw defendant and approached him in an attempt
to end their ongoing dispute. According to Wilson, defendant
then "took off" while holding a phone to his ear.
Wilson testified that the three then continued to walk home,
having to cross a bridge on their way. Once they were at the
bridge, he saw defendant "pull [a gun], cock it, and * *
* fire[] [it]." Wilson further testified that he saw a
total of three individuals that night involved in the
shooting-one who stood next to defendant and another who
stood nearby. Wilson identified the two individuals
accompanying defendant as Smoke and City.[3] Wilson also testified that, although he
had not personally known Smoke and City, he had seen them
with defendant during the previous "incident when [he]
was walking [his] son from school." Wilson testified
that he recognized Smoke and City because defendant was
"always with them."

Wilson
further testified that, on the night of the shooting, before
hearing the gun cock and attempting to flee in response, he
was asked by City, "did you rob my boy[?]"-and
Wilson responded that he had not. Wilson testified that at
that time both City and defendant had a gun in their hands.
Wilson testified that he "ran straight * * * to go
toward [his] house over th[e] bridge * * * and then * * *
when [he] turned around" the gun fired. Although he
could not be certain, Wilson believed he had made it to the
end of the bridge before being shot. He testified that he
then observed defendant, Smoke, and City "just run
off" and that he remembered "[waking] up in the
hospital." Wilson described his injuries, which included
the loss of his right leg and injury to his stomach, and he
testified that he spent roughly four months in the hospital
and two months in rehabilitation.

On
cross-examination, Wilson conceded that, in his initial
interview on May 30, 2013 with Lieutenant Mark Cabral of the
Woonsocket Police Department, he had not disclosed the prior
school incident, but believed that he likely did not remember
the incident at that time because he had just recovered from
a coma. On redirect, Wilson clarified that he had, however,
disclosed the prior school incident in an April 2014 meeting
with Lt. Cabral and the prosecutor in this case. Wilson
maintained that, in the April 2014 meeting, he had also
disclosed that, during this previous incident, defendant had
been accompanied by five or six individuals.[4]

On the
following morning of trial, defendant moved for a mistrial
"based upon * * * Wilson's answers to certain
questions" on the previous day. The defendant explained
to the trial justice that he had been notified by the state
shortly before the trial began that "Wilson would
testify that when [defendant] confronted [Wilson] at the
school where [Wilson's] son was, that [defendant] had
five to six people with him as part of a group to confront *
* * Wilson * * *." However, defendant pointed out that
at trial Wilson went a step further and testified that he
could identify Smoke and City as the two involved in the
shooting with defendant because they had been together at the
previous school incident. The defendant maintained that he
had not been informed by the state as to any testimony
regarding Smoke and City's presence at the previous
incident. The defendant argued to the trial justice that this
evidence was prejudicial because "it indicate[d] [he]
had contact with [Smoke and City], and that they had some
hard feelings as well toward * * * Wilson." The
defendant argued that, had this information been disclosed to
him prior to trial, "there would have been more efforts
to locate and try to talk to Smoke, or to find the identity
of City, or to follow through with this information to try to
either rebut it or uncover further details for [the defense]
to use on cross-examination." He claimed that ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.